Judge Allows Take-Home Exposure Asbestos Lawsuit to Move Forward

Posted on July 29, 2013 by Steven Kazan

On July 26, 2013, Kazan, McClain, Satterley, Lyons, Greenwood & Oberman were pleased that justice was achieved for the wife of a retired Bay Area ironworker when an Alameda County Superior Court judge allowed her take-home exposure asbestos lawsuit to move forward to trial by jury.

Donald LeBoa worked for hundreds of days on the construction of the Bank of America high rise building in San Francisco in the late 1960’s. The project involved a continuous sweeping of dry oversprayed fireproofing in the building, which caused large amounts of asbestos-containing dust to become airborne.

The asbestos in the air fell on everyone in the area, including Mr. LeBoa, whose work clothes became covered with asbestos dust. Mr. LeBoa wore his work clothes home every day and his wife washed them. Mrs. LeBoa shook out the dust from her husband’s clothes before putting them in the washing machine with the rest of the laundry.

Mrs. LeBoa was diagnosed in 2012 with mesothelioma, a fatal cancer. The asbestos on her husband’s work clothes caused Mrs. LeBoa’s mesothelioma.

The sweeping work that created the asbestos dust that fell onto Mr. LeBoa’s work clothes was performed by a company called Cahill. Cahill did not try to control the asbestos dust in the building nor did Cahill warn anyone of its risks.

Mrs. LeBoa sought compensation from Cahill, along with other defendants, in a take-home exposure asbestos lawsuit for its role in causing her harm. Cahill asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that a person exposed to deadly dust tracked into her home should have no right to file a lawsuit. Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee disagreed with Cahill and allowed Mrs. LeBoa’s case to move forward. The judge’s order explained, “Cahill has not made a sufficient legal argument to induce this court to establish a new rule of law and grant it summary judgment under that new rule.”

Trial for this take-home exposure asbestos lawsuit begins on August 13, 2013 against Cahill and the other defendants. (LeBoa v. Alta Building Material Co., et al., Alameda County Superior Court, No. RG13667129)

Asbestos Exposure and the Risks with Cosmetics

Posted on July 25, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Whenever you think of items that may pose a threat of asbestos exposure, you’re likely to call to mind construction materials. These may include insulation, cement products or vinyl floor tiles.

You probably wouldn’t think about cosmetics. The idea of applying asbestos-tainted makeup and hygiene products directly to your skin or the skin of a loved one probably sounds either appalling or far-fetched. However, there are a lot of questions surrounding the use of talc, which is used in many cosmetic items, including baby powder.

What substances are still allowed in cosmetics?
Recently, wellness columnist Gabrielle Korn, who works for the fashion news site Refinery 29, wrote an article about how only 10 substances are officially banned from the manufacturing of cosmetics in the U.S., compared to nearly 1,400 in Europe. Among the ingredients that are banned in Europe but still accepted in the U.S. are coal tar, lead, animal-tested ingredients and the pregnancy-related hormone progesterone.

Furthermore, asbestos is still technically allowed in products that contain talc. In discussing this revelation, Korn directed readers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has been dealing with questions about talc and asbestos since the 1970s.

In addition to being the main component of baby powder, talc is used in the manufacturing processes of rice, chewing gum and medication tablets.

Here’s what the agency’s website had to say about the matter:

“Both talc and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that may be found in close proximity in the earth. Unlike talc, however, asbestos is a known carcinogen. For this reason, FDA considers it unacceptable for cosmetic talc to be contaminated with asbestos.”

The FDA added that asbestos exposure from talc can be prevented by manufacturers who select their talc mines carefully and purify the ore sufficiently.

To investigate these questions further, the FDA decided to survey samples from talc suppliers between Sept. 2009 and Sept. 2010. Only four talc suppliers sent the agency samples for laboratory analyses.

Additionally, the FDA obtained some of the most common talc-containing cosmetics, including blush, eyeshadow, foundation, face powder and body powder.

None of the samples turned up positive for asbestos. While this is encouraging, it isn’t definitive for all talc suppliers and cosmetics in the U.S.

Ultimately, though, the agency hasn’t officially banned the use of talc that may be contaminated with asbestos.

More questions surround talc
Asbestos is a known carcinogen and the only proven driver of fatal diseases such as malignant mesothelioma. For these reasons, some consumers have become worried about the safety and purity of talc.

Respiratory problems aren’t the only potential health problems posed by talc. Experts from the American Cancer Society pointed out that there have been questions about a possible link between talc and ovarian cancer in women. Talc can sometimes be added to products applied to women’s genitals, such as sanitary napkins, diaphragms or condoms. Several studies have investigated whether this can lead to ovarian cancer. However, one review of 16 previous studies completed before 2003 indicated that the risk increase of this disease for talc users is 30 percent higher than it is for non-talc users. If the lifetime risk of ovarian cancer for women on average is 1.4 percent, that means that talc would raise that figure to only 1.8 percent, which is still relatively small.

However, it’s perfectly understandable if you’d still be wary of using talc. If you need a substitute, the American Cancer Society suggested using products that are cornstarch-based.

Pfizer Sheds its Liability in Asbestos Lawsuits with $964 Million

Posted on July 23, 2013 by Steven Kazan

One of the dangers of asbestos exposure is the fact that disease symptoms related to contact with the material can take between 20 and 50 years to develop. Patients may not know they’re sick for decades. In the meantime, the business dynamics of the unscrupulous companies responsible for asbestos exposure may shift dramatically. However, that doesn’t make them any less accountable to the victims they hurt, and it doesn’t make the situation any less appalling when these companies try to dodge their responsibility in asbestos lawsuits.

Recently, I came across a story in Bloomberg that discussed how Pfizer can now shed its asbestos-related liability after contributing $964 million to Quigley, which is one of its subsidiaries.

Drug giant passes the buck
In 1968, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer bought a smaller company known as Quigley, which manufactured asbestos-containing products between the 1940s and 1970s. One of the most popular products was Insulag, which was a form of powdered insulation that was sold in a package brandishing the Pfizer logo after the buyout.

By 1992, most of Quigley’s operations came to a halt, and in 2004, the company filed for bankruptcy. After, about 160,000 asbestos lawsuits were filed against Quigley. Pfizer was also named as a defendant in many of these asbestos lawsuits, but the drug company insisted it had never manufactured or sold products that contained asbestos.

In 2010, Pfizer proposed paying $216.2 million to cover all claims up to that point, but the presiding judge on the case rejected the proposal in part because it was estimated that these claims can reach $4.45 billion over 42 years.

The newly approved bankruptcy plan for Quigley has Pfizer paying $964 million. The case didn’t stop there, though. Pfizer tried to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately denied the company’s request.

The Daily Bankruptcy Review also noted that, previously, Pfizer paid more than $1 billion in asbestos compensation.

Asbestos exposure has devastating consequences
While the focus of the recent action in this case was on the bankruptcy proceeding, it shouldn’t be forgotten that behind all of these figures and legal terms are real victims and their families, who have suffered immensely because of asbestos exposure.

Many workers were exposed to the substance on the job due to its industrial uses and ignorance of the deadly consequences it can pose.

It has now been known for decades that coming into contact with asbestos can cause a range of serious illnesses. These diseases include asbestosis, lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma, a rare and deadly cancer that attacks the thin membrane that lines the chest, abdomen and many of the body’s internal organs.

These diseases often don’t manifest symptoms until decades after the exposure that caused them. This lag in time between exposure and diagnosis helps explain how a defunct company like Quigley could still be responsible for victims who only now know that they’re sick. In addition, this delay makes the effective treatment of the illnesses very difficult because, often, the disease has progressed beyond the point where a cure is possible.

Kazan Foundation Supports IBAS Grant for Doctor’s Asbestos Training

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Steven Kazan

In order to file an asbestos claim, patients must first show that they’ve experienced irreversible damage to their respiratory system, and that asbestos is truly the cause. This requires the expertise of doctors who are specially trained by groups like the International Labour Organisation, or ILO, to identify asbestos-induced illness.

The 2012 International Ban Asbestos Secretariat grant was awarded to Dr. Abhijeet Jadhav, who used the grant to complete his training for the ILO 2000 International Certification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses. With this education, Jadhav now has the knowledge needed to read the X-rays of patients who potentially have asbestos claims to file.

What do X-rays tell us?
In addition to causing asbestosis, the inhalation of asbestos fibers can drive other life-threatening illnesses, such as malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer – all of which affect the respiratory system. To the untrained observer, some of the symptoms of these diseases, including chest pain and breathing difficulties, are hard to tell apart from each other. This is where chest X-rays come in handy.

Using these radiological scans, trained physicians can more closely examine patients’ bones, hearts and lungs. When it comes to the lungs, X-rays can reveal problems such as collapse, abnormal fluid collection, tumors, malformed blood vessels and scarring. The formation of scar tissue is a distinguishing characteristic of asbestosis, along with coughing, sensations of chest tightness, nail abnormalities and clubbing of the fingers.

IBAS grant recipient makes good use of award
The World Health Organization estimates that 125 million people all over the globe deal with asbestos exposure in the workplace. Many of these individuals are from developing countries, such as India. This is where Jadhav decided to put his ILO training, which he paid for with the IBAS grant, to good use.

For his study, Jadhav interviewed 17 individuals – all of whom were former workers in a factory that manufactured asbestos and cement sheets, and all of whom were asbestosis patients. The research team asked the study participants about their work setting, what they knew concerning the health risks of asbestos exposure and how their conditions affected family life.

The interviews revealed that the subjects didn’t see their sicknesses as a big deal, but this may have something to do with the fact that fatal asbestos-related illnesses can take decades to develop.

Here’s what Jadhav had to say about the study, which was published in the Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine:

“It suggests a need of very strong program for prevention of asbestosis with the incorporation of worker awareness and education for safety. The socio-economical status and educational levels of the workers make this floating population more vulnerable for manipulation by the corporates.”

Jadhav said that India also needed a stronger foundation for providing injured workers with rehabilitation and palliative care. Ultimately, though, he concluded that there’s only one real solution for protecting workers: banning the use and production of asbestos around the world.

The partners behind the Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons, Greenwood, Oberman, Satterley & Bosl Foundation couldn’t agree more, and want nothing but the best for our clients and workers everywhere. That’s why we’re proud to support IBAS so that it could help others.

Communities Dealing with High Asbestos Exposure Risks

Posted on July 19, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Usually, when we hear about cases of asbestos exposure, we hear about individuals who weren’t adequately protected from this material. They may have encountered asbestos because of their jobs, or because someone they lived with handled asbestos on a regular basis. There are also aging buildings that can put people at risk because they’re both old and in poor condition, causing mineral fibers to break off of asbestos-containing products.

What’s beyond appalling is when we hear of entire communities dealing with asbestos exposure. These types of situations raise many questions: Who’s responsible for placing these people at risk? What can be done to protect future generations? What do the locals know about the hazards surrounding asbestos exposure?

Recently, I read about a student at the University of Pennsylvania who’s currently studying one former factory town in order to answer some of these questions.

People don’t realize that ‘risk is real’
Shabnam Elahi, a senior at Penn, is a biology major who decided to focus her research on a town named Ambler, which is 40 minutes northeast of Philadelphia. In 1881, Ambler became home to an asbestos factory. By mid-20th century, the science connecting asbestos to potentially fatal diseases such as malignant mesothelioma became too difficult to deny, and factories such as the one in Ambler began to shut down.

Unfortunately, a lot of the waste product was left behind.

Eventually, the federal Environmental Protection Agency designated Ambler as a Superfund site, which gives the government the power to oversee the rehabilitation of the area’s cleanup.

Meanwhile, Elahi, along with her colleagues and mentors, is speaking to the people of the town in order to learn who’s developing mesothelioma, who’s most at risk and what people know about the risks surrounding asbestos exposure.

Frances Barg, associate professor of family medicine and community health in Penn’s Perelman School of Medicine and associate professor in the anthropology department (and also a mentor of Elahi), also told Penn News that the long period of time it takes for this disease to develop led people to have a misconception that asbestos-related risks aren’t deserving of so much worry.

Ultimately, Elahi can use this information to predict who’s at risk and figure out how to help them.

There are asbestos Superfund sites everywhere
Ambler isn’t the only place in the U.S. that the federal government thinks is deserving of help for an asbestos problem. Across the country, there are other communities dealing with these issues.

Among the most well-known of these towns is Libby, Mont. This community was once a world leader in the mining and processing of vermiculite, a significant proportion of which was tainted with asbestos.

In California, there are two areas being considered for Superfund designation sites: El Dorado Hills, where the soil around a high school was found to contain asbestos, and Clear Creek Management Area, where recreational vehicles are liable to disturb asbestos fibers in the soil.

There are several things you can do to keep dust out of your house. When it comes to driving vehicles, walking, running or playing, make sure that you and your children stick only with paved surfaces or ground that has some sort of covering, like shredded rubber, grass, sand or asphalt. Before entering the house, remove your shoes and ensure that your pets have clean feet and fur.

Hurricane Sandy Aftermath Leaves Residents at Risk for Asbestos Exposure

Posted on July 17, 2013 by Steven Kazan

During the fall of 2012, the northeastern U.S. endured what’s considered the most expensive natural disaster in the history of the country. Hurricane Sandy struck New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and other states. Government experts estimated that up to 12 inches of precipitation fell between Oct. 29 and Oct. 31. By Nov. 30, more than 100 people died.

In the aftermath, citizens had to deal with extensive flood cleanup. However, there’s more to worry about than water damage in the buildings. The actual flood waters themselves may have carried toxic waste away from isolated sites and into residential areas, increasing the risks for asbestos exposure and other hazards. News12 New Jersey recently caught up with the city of Little Ferry, where health experts warned residents about the new dangers that may be lurking in their soil.

Contaminants may be ‘entering the food chain’
The residents of Little Ferry are worried because during Hurricane Sandy, flood waters coursed through the neighborhood from areas that are deemed Superfund sites. Superfund sites are places that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has dubbed worthy of attention as a cleanup site due to the presence of toxic materials, including asbestos. These are often the locations of former industrial complexes.

Even after the water receded, residents are still concerned about what may have been left behind in their soil.

Here’s what homeowner Regina Coyle told News12 New Jersey about her vegetable garden:

“I’m afraid of the lead, I’m afraid of the possible arsenic, those kinds of things entering the food chain.”

Furthermore, the environmental group Climate Central estimated that Hurricane Sandy spread 5 billion gallons of raw sewage throughout New Jersey alone.

Government and environmental groups offered conflicting accounts of how genuine the health threats from the soil are. The EPA said that toxin-tainted soil at the Superfund sites was confined to areas that were off-limits to the public, but conceded that this was only based on visual inspections rather than lab tests. Meanwhile, the company RTK Environmental Group warned the news source that soil samples at different sites found contamination levels that are triple what’s acceptable.

There’s disagreement over the value of soil testing in this case because the flood waters covered a wide area, and academic experts warn that normal test results may not cover all the grounds. In the meantime, Bergen County Health officials advise gardeners to grow their vegetables using potted soil in containers raised off of the ground.

Remember these other cleanup tips
During any disaster that involves property damage – flooding, storms, earthquakes, fires and so on – it’s important to remember that debris of any sort may be tainted with asbestos. Handling this waste can increase the risk for fatal illnesses, including malignant mesothelioma.

If you suspect a building or house damaged in a disaster contains products tainted with asbestos, contact your local public health authorities to let them know. If the asbestos is still in your house, they can advise you on the best way to take care of it, which may involve either repairing it or removing it – two processes that you shouldn’t attempt to do on your own. Containing the asbestos usually involves sealing or covering the products within a leak-free material.

Latest Trends in Asbestos-Related Disease

Posted on July 16, 2013 by Steven Kazan

It’s common knowledge in the scientific community that exposure to asbestos drives the development of several diseases. However, it’s important to remember that scientific knowledge doesn’t stand still. Researchers are always trying to learn something new when it comes to asbestos-related diseases, whether it has to do with diagnosis, treatment or prevention.

During the course of a few years, it’s easy for the research community to acquire so much knowledge that it’s hard to keep track of everything. Recently, I came across an article in The Clinical Respiratory Journal, in which scientists from Australia took a step back and reviewed what is known about illnesses caused by asbestos exposure.

What is the U.S.’s policy on asbestos?
Before we get into what the scientists wrote in their article, let’s take a moment to remember that asbestos is still a health threat in the U.S. The fact that it’s often a topic of discussion as a health threat may mislead people into thinking that it’s no longer allowed in this country. Unfortunately, they’d be wrong, but it’s not for lack of trying.

Asbestos was a common component of many construction materials up until the 1970s. Due to the growing scientific consensus connecting the mineral to diseases such as malignant pleural mesothelioma, responsible companies started eliminating asbestos from their manufacturing processes. Elsewhere, the federal government started banning the use of certain asbestos products. These efforts came to a head in 1989, when the Environmental Protection Agency prohibited most uses of asbestos. However, the powerful asbestos lobby successfully reversed most of this policy.

As it stands now in the U.S., new uses of asbestos are banned, along with inclusion in the manufacturing of rollboard, flooring felt, corrugated paper, construction paper and specialty paper. It is still allowed in products that have always used it, such as cement sheets.

What does the latest review tell us?
The continued use of asbestos is significant because of its ties to illness. While malignant mesothelioma is arguably the most feared of these diseases, it’s important to remember that the breadth of asbestos-related diseases is wider than that. Other complications include asbestosis, pleural plaques, diffuse pleural thickening, benign pleural effusions, rounded atelectasis and lung cancer.

Here’s what the researchers had to write about the progress in addressing these health issues:

“No new treatments have been developed for the benign [asbestos-related diseases]. Significant advances have been made in chest imaging and nuclear medicine techniques, which have greatly assisted in diagnosis and treatment planning, and in thoracoscopic surgical techniques for diagnosing [malignant mesothelioma]. Sadly, [malignant mesothelioma] remains a deadly disease despite much research endeavor.”

They suggested that further research on the mechanisms of mesothelioma can help the medical community provide more effective treatment.

What can consumers do now?
The review authors suggested that, in the meantime, the best way to tackle asbestos-related diseases is to prevent them in the first place. That means banning the use and production of asbestos around the globe.

The World Health Organization is working with several intergovernment groups and the International Labour Organization to support education on the dangers of asbestos and the use of safe alternative materials. Meanwhile, you as the consumer need to continue to pressure your legislators so that they know that you don’t want your life to be in danger.

Robot May Protect Workers from Asbestos Exposure

Posted on July 15, 2013 by Steven Kazan

In an effort to control the pollution problem, entire cities and neighborhoods have adopted recycling programs. And it’s not just the number of programs that’s expanding – it’s also the number of materials. In addition to plastic, glass and paper, more programs are accommodating the collection of compost and electronics.

However, the construction and demolition industries leave much to be desired by way of waste recycling. This is due to several reasons, including the fact that this waste is still manually sorted, and the risk of asbestos exposure and other hazardous materials is still an issue.

Fortunately, scientists aren’t content to let waste reduction efforts lag. Recently, I read an article from CNN that talked about a tech company based in Finland. The innovators at ZenRobotics created a robot with artificial intelligence that enables it to learn how to sort through the recyclable rubble of construction and demolition waste.

Once this technology is perfected, it can mean a real boon to workers who wouldn’t have to worry as much about asbestos exposure when cleaning up waste from buildings.

Robotic ‘brain’ can apply knowledge at conveyor belt
Experts estimate that construction and demolition are responsible for more than one-third of all solid waste. In the U.S., this amounts to 325 million tons every year. This trend coincides with the deplorable fact that 80 percent of potentially recyclable waste eventually ends up in landfills.

When it comes to waste from buildings, the organization of these materials has a lot of room for improvement.

Jufo Peltomaa, founder of ZenRobotics, was reportedly struck by inspiration when he watched a documentary that featured the disposal and recycling of a B52 bomber. The employees picking through the waste looked bored, and Peltomaa thought it would be helpful to have a robotic sorter.

The ZenRobotics Recycler, or ZRR, is equipped with technology that allows for weight measurement, tactile assessment, three-dimensional scanning and more – all of which allows the machine to sort through different types of material on a conveyor belt.

Where is the asbestos in all the rubble?
Although asbestos exposure is the only proven cause of fatal diseases such as malignant mesothelioma, there are still many products that include this material in their manufacturing processes. These include vermiculite insulation, certain cement products, vinyl flooring and adhesives, roofing and siding shingles, textured paint and patching compounds, piping insulation and furnace gaskets. Asbestos-containing products are particularly plentiful in buildings that were constructed before the 1980s.

Typically, asbestos products pose no health problems to people as long as they are kept intact. However, this is not the case during demolition, and the physical disturbances can send mineral fibers airborne.

However, a machine like the ZRR can make asbestos exposure unnecessary for demolition and construction crews.

Other inventions are on the horizon
What’s exciting to us at Kazan Law is the fact that the ZRR isn’t the only gadget in development that can help protect people from asbestos fibers. Scientists from the University of Hertfordshire in the U.K. have invented a device that can analyze air samples for the presence of asbestos fibers in real time. This is a vast improvement over current techniques of asbestos detection, which can take hours. The first commercially available devices should be ready within the next two years.

High School Students Fight Asbestos Exposure in Court

Posted on July 11, 2013 by Steven Kazan

High school is a time for adolescents to learn more about the responsibilities that adults face. One of the most important things that high school students learn about is using their voice, which is particularly important if they need to seek justice against someone who’s wronged them. Recently, I came across a story in the Merced Sun-Star, which talked about former high school students who were preparing to make statements in federal court against a non-profit organization that illegally used them to perform abatement work. This ultimately put them at risk for asbestos exposure in the process.

Vocational students lacked proper training
In 1998, the Merced County Housing Authority launched a non-profit agency known as Firm Build, which had a goal of modernizing public housing while teaching residents marketable skills. In 2005, the Merced County Office of Education negotiated a lease with Firm Build to renovate a Castle Commerce Center building as an automotive teaching center.

During the project, Firm Build made an appalling attempt at taking short cuts by selecting nine vocational high school students and having them remove asbestos. These youngsters were not properly trained on how to handle asbestos, and didn’t receive any protective material to prevent asbestos exposure.

In March 2013, three project managers pleaded no contest to violating federal asbestos exposure regulations. They were convicted in May.

Final sentencing of these perpetrators is scheduled for August. At this time, the former students, who are now all in their 20s, will make statements before the court about how the project managers endangered their lives. Meanwhile, the federal prosecutor still has time to reach out to more former students who may want to make statements also.

Stories need to be shared
The point of making an impact statement during the sentencing phase of a criminal case is for victims to have their say about how the convicted criminals hurt them, which can influence the sentence that’s ultimately handed down.

If you’ve been hurt by asbestos, you don’t have to wait until the responsible parties have been brought to court. You should tell everyone your story, including news media and your lawmakers, who have to power to control how asbestos is regulated. If you consult a law firm that specializes in asbestos cases, you can also learn about your legal recourse in launching a lawsuit in civil court.

In the meantime, schools have a responsibility to protect students from asbestos exposure. Parents who are worried about whether the schools are doing this job the way they should can contact their local education agencies, which are responsible for inspecting school buildings for potential asbestos exposure dangers.

Every year, asbestos-related diseases such as malignant pleural mesothelioma claim more than 9,900 lives. That figure may not reach its peak for another 10 years or so, partly because these illnesses can take 20 to 50 years to fully manifest themselves. Today’s high school students shouldn’t have to worry about being among those who get sick.

Asbestos Lawsuit Evidence that Won a $27.3 Million Verdict

Posted on July 9, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Last month I announced the $27.3 million asbestos lawsuit verdict Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood obtained against Owens-Illinois, a former manufacturer of KAYLO asbestos containing thermal pipe insulation. Our client, Rose-Marie Grigg was diagnosed with mesothelioma in the fall of 2011. Her disease was caused from exposure to deadly asbestos fibers she inhaled while handling and washing the clothes of her husband, an insulator for a company that used KAYLO products.

In this video, Joe Satterley, Kazan Law partner and lead attorney in the asbestos lawsuit trial, discusses some of the evidence that was presented to the jury. Animations illustrate how Mrs. Grigg’s husband’s clothes were contaminated and how Mrs. Grigg came to develop her fatal disease. Evidence also proves that Owens-Illinois knew that their KAYLO product was dangerous, yet continued mass volume production with packaging and marketing that claimed it was non-toxic.

All of us at Kazan Law were very excited that the jury’s decision in this asbestos lawsuit gave the Griggs justice at last, and in the process also did justice to Owens-Illinois by imposing an $11 million penalty to punish Owens-Illinois and make an example of them to help educate all of Corporate America about the need to protect consumers. While money cannot replace the wonderful married life that has been permanently injured, the asbestos lawsuit verdict is an important win towards holding corporations accountable for their past horrible decisions.

Posts by: Steven Kazan

Judge Allows Take-Home Exposure Asbestos Lawsuit to Move Forward

Asbestos Exposure and the Risks with Cosmetics

Pfizer Sheds its Liability in Asbestos Lawsuits with $964 Million

Kazan Foundation Supports IBAS Grant for Doctor’s Asbestos Training

Communities Dealing with High Asbestos Exposure Risks

Hurricane Sandy Aftermath Leaves Residents at Risk for Asbestos Exposure

Robot May Protect Workers from Asbestos Exposure

High School Students Fight Asbestos Exposure in Court

Asbestos Lawsuit Evidence that Won a $27.3 Million Verdict

Our Recent Verdicts

Latest News

Recent Blog Posts

Search Our Site

Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

Mesothelioma Lawyers